Allowed

Raj Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC24 Nov 2020BAIL/37463/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a bail application filed by Raj Kumar under Sections 498A and 304B IPC. The court granted bail based on parity, noting another family member was already released and the husband was not an accused. Bail was subject to several strict conditions regarding trial attendance and court proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail on execution of a personal bond without sureties initially, with a direction to furnish sureties within one month of normal court functioning.

Raj Kumar Vs State of U.P. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37463 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Raj Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Tapan Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard Shri T.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. Perused the record.

¶6

The present bail application filed on behalf of Raj Kumar seeking his bail in connection with Case Crime No.996 of 2019, u/s 498A, 304B, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S.-Dadari, District-Gautam Budh Nagar.

¶7

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the F.I.R. was registered by one Lalit 4.9.2019 against father-in-law, mother-in-law and Devar of the deceased for the demand of dowry of Rs.5 lacs and one Swift car. The husband has not been arrayed as accused in the F.I.R. Interestingly the husband is the person who could be said to be the main beneficiary of aforesaid additional dowry has not been nominated. Submission is that the mother-in-law has already been granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.9.2020 while deciding Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.22071 of 2020. The post-mortem report reveals that there is singular ligature mark around the neck of the deceased and she died on account of ante mortem hanging. Contention is that the applicant is father-in-law and in totality of circumstances when the husband has not been arrayed as an accused and the motherin-law has already been released on bail, therefore, on the principles of parity the applicant is also entitled for bail. The applicant is in jail since 04.03.2020 having no criminal antecedents.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶9

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018)3 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail

¶10

application is allowed.

¶11

Let the applicant Raj Kumar, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶12

(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT. IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶13

(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

¶14

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

¶15

(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPLICANT IS DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶16

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL

¶17

WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.

¶18

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶19

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶20

Since the bail application has been decided under extra-ordinary circumstances, thus in the interest of justice following additional conditions are being imposed just to facilitate the applicant to be released on bail forthwith. Needless to mention that these additional conditions are imposed to cope with emergent condition-:

¶21

1. The applicant shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored. The accused will furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the court below within a month after normal functioning of the courts are restored.

¶22

2. The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶23

3. The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

¶24

4. The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶25

However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his/her bail so granted by this Court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.

¶26

Order Date :- 24.11.2020 M. Kumar

Raj Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Imrat Vs State of U.P.

Smt Vidya Devi Vs State of U.P.

Subhawati Devi Vs State of U.P.

Ikram Vs State of U.P.

Harsh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Ramayan Shri and Another Vs State of Up